These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

159 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10901436)

  • 1. Law and ethics meet: when couples fight over their frozen embryos.
    Forster HP
    J Androl; 2000; 21(4):512-4. PubMed ID: 10901436
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Frozen embryos: towards an equitable solution.
    Trespalacios MJ
    Univ Miami Law Rev; 1992 Jan; 46(3):803-34. PubMed ID: 16047447
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The legal dimensions of in vitro fertilization: cryopreserved embryos frozen in legal limbo.
    Cuva AJ
    N Y Law Sch J Hum Rights; 1991; 8(part 2):383-414. PubMed ID: 16144101
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The parent trap: uncovering the myth of "coerced parenthood" in frozen embryo disputes.
    Waldman E
    Am Univ Law Rev; 2004 Jun; 53(5):1021-62. PubMed ID: 15529471
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The "embryo" wars: at the epicenter of science, law, religion, and politics.
    Crockin SL
    Fam Law Q; 2005; 39(3):599-632. PubMed ID: 16610149
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Fate of stored embryos: our 10 years experience.
    Cattoli M; Borini A; Bonu MA
    Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2004 Jul; 115 Suppl 1():S16-8. PubMed ID: 15196710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Deciding custody of frozen embryos: many eggs are frozen but who is chosen?
    Malo PE
    DePaul J Health Care Law; 1999-2000; 3():307-34. PubMed ID: 15929238
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Examining disputes over ownership rights to frozen embryos: will prior consent documents survive if challenged by state law and/or constitutional principles?
    Sheinbach DM
    Cathol Univers Law Rev; 1999; 48(3):989-1027. PubMed ID: 12611403
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Prior agreements for disposition of frozen embryos.
    Robertson JA
    Ohio State Law J; 1990; 51(2):407-24. PubMed ID: 11652816
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Family law--contract--Supreme Court of New Jersey holds that preembryo disposition agreements are not binding when one party later objects.--J.B. v. M.B., No. A-9-00, 2001 WL 909294 (N.J. Aug. 14, 2001).
    Harv Law Rev; 2001 Dec; 115(2):701-8. PubMed ID: 11958230
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Ethical and moral issues and government legislation.
    Hightower MD; Younger JB
    Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol; 1989 Oct; 1(1):80-6. PubMed ID: 2491112
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Frozen embryos: what are they and how should the law treat them?
    Sublett MF
    Clevel State Law Rev; 1990; 38(4):585-616. PubMed ID: 11659459
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The Davis dilemma: how to prevent battles over frozen preembryos.
    Panitch AR
    Case West Reserve Law Rev; 1991; 41(2):543-79. PubMed ID: 16127877
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Dealing with cryopreserved embryos upon divorce: a contractual approach aimed at preserving party expectations.
    Petersen SD
    UCLA Law Rev; 2003 Apr; 50(4):1065-93. PubMed ID: 15378819
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Cold shoulder treatment: the disposition of frozen embryos post-divorce.
    King M
    Thurgood Marshall Law Rev; 1999 Fall-2000 Spring; 25(1-2):99-137. PubMed ID: 16211741
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Moore 10 years later--still trying to fill the gap: creating a personal property right in genetic material.
    Seeney EB
    New Engl Law Rev; 1998; 32(4):1131-91. PubMed ID: 12778925
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Conundrums with penumbras: the right to privacy encompasses non-gamete providers who create preembryos with the intent to become parents.
    Dillon LM
    Wash Law Rev; 2003 May; 78(2):625-51. PubMed ID: 15378817
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Parpalaix v. CECOS: Protecting Intent in Reproductive Technology.
    Katz GA
    Harv J Law Technol; 1998; 11(3):683-98. PubMed ID: 12731553
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Parenthood, genes, and gametes: the family law and trusts and estates perspectives.
    Cahn NR
    Univ Memphis Law Rev; 2002; 32(3):563-606. PubMed ID: 16526142
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Allocation of decision-making rights to frozen embryos.
    Poole EK
    Am J Fam Law; 1990; 4(1):67-102. PubMed ID: 11659329
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.